Delhi Court February 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maltex Malsters Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC6
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the two demands for differential central excise duty served on them. The lower authorities have held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 in respect of the barley malt prepared by them out of customer's barley and hence the said barley malt was to be assessed to duty on its full value and not on the job charge or conversion charge only as originally done. (1) Conversion of customer's barley into barley malt constituted job work within the meaning of the notification [reliance on Anup Engineering case-1978 E.L.T. J 533 (Gujarat) and similar judgments of Calcutta and Madras High Courts relating to different commodities]. (2) In any case, so far as the past period was concerned, they were entitled to the benefit since they had entered into agreement with their customer only after the Assistant Collector had confirmed to them in writing on 19-5-1978 that they were eligible to the ...
H.P.S. Chawla Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi169; 1986RLR213
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Shri H. P. S. Chawla is one of the brothers of the deceased, Mrs. Raj Chawla Sahni. She died at New Delhi on 5-6-1984 leaving behind a Will dated 13-5-1984. In a petition under Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of letters of Administration with the will annexed, the case set up by Shri H. P. S. Chawla, petitioner is that in her will Smt. Raj Chawla Sahni does not name any executor but the petitioner being one of the legatees is entitled to file the present petition. The estate duty payable in respect of the estate of Ms. Raj Chawla Sahni is still to be filed and the petitioner undertakes to make such payments from and out of the estate, as may be found due by the department on completion of the estate duty assessment. Shri Joginder Nath Sahni, the husband of the deceased has already instituted a Probate case No. 3811984, though pending in this court is not maintainable. The persons who would have been entitled to the estate of the deceased in the...
Ghani Mohammad Vs. JamaluddIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT497
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Respondent No. 1 tenant, moved an application under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking the permission of the Controller to make repairs in the premises in his tenancy. It was alleged,inter allia, that there was a hole in the back wall and the plaster has lost its strength and the wall was likely to fall. The petitioner-landlord contested the application and alleged, inter alia, that the back wall has fallen by the overact of the tenant.(2) In those proceedings the landlord moved an application under Order 26 rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, for appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain the facts on the spot. This application was dismissed by the learned Addl, Controller.(3) The object of local investigation is not to together evidence which can be taken in court but to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can only be had on the spot. The fact whether the wall has fallen downer not can be proved by producing evidence. In any case the order is...
Shaukat Bano Vs. Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ58
G.C. Jain, J. (1) MST. Shaukat Bano, the landlady, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Controller, dated May 9, 1985 dismissing her application for eviction of the tenant (respondent herein).(2) Smt. Sushila Devi was the owner of the property No. P-13, N.D.S.E. Part Ii, New Delhi. She let out its ground floor to the respondent U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 725.00 vide lease deed dated July 1, 1969. Afterwards she sold this property to the petitioner by means of a sale deed dated March 30, 1970. The petitioner consequently became the landlady.(3) On August 25, 1980 she brought a petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the said premises. According to the averments made in the petitioner she was the owner of the premises and the same had been let out only for resident(4) The tenant resisted the petition. The pleas raised were that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and were being used for both purpo...
Bimla Rani Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1986
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi60
Malik, J.(1) The detenu Bimla Rani petitioner herein has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 25th of March 1987 passed by Shri Tarun Roy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974 (as amended). The detention order, was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods and is based on an incident dated 16th of February 1986 when she was found smuggling 14 foreign marked gold bars each weighing 100 grams and one foreign made gold bit weighing 10 grams. The petitioner is a citizen of Singapore and was traveling from Singapore to Madras where she was caught by customs people in the process of smuggling gold. Mr. Pinaki, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged a number of grounds before me to press his point that the detention is vitiated and is unsustainable in law but it is not necessary for me to go into all the contentions as I find this petit...
D.C. Dhanpat Rai Bhatia Steel Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC142Tri(Delhi)
1.These matters, we are hearing now, were presented by Mr. Y.N. Chopra, 77, Navjiwan Vihar, New Delhi on behalf of M/s. Ch. Dewan Chand Dhanpat Rai Bhatia Steel Rolling Mills, Mandi Gobindgarh, by whom, he says, he has been engaged. They bear F. No. 81-CE/80, dated 26-5-1980 and were presented as a review application under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against order-in-appeal No. 824-825-CE/79, dated 9-8-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. It is not clear why this petition was filed as a review application under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act when it could as well have been filed as a revision petition under Section 36(1). However, not to put too fine a point upon it, we will deal with it as an appeal filed to this Tribunal, which is how Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act requires such things to be done. This application/petition/appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal we have recorded ab...
Taylor Instrument Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD351(Delhi)
1. This second appeal emanates from the order dated 14-11-1983 passed in relation to an application filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') claiming interest under Section 244(1A) of the Act on refund of Rs. 2,50,000. The assessment year involved is 1980-81 and the order under appeal is dated 22-6-1984 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The necessary facts for purpose of deciding this appeal are that the assessee-company entered into a technical collaboration agreement with Sybron Corpn., New York, USA on 31-5-1979 for manufacture of electronic range of instruments. As per the agreement the assessee was to remit certain amounts by way of royalty to its foreign collaborators. On being approached the ITO directed the assessee to deduct tax 40 per cent on the amount due to be paid to the said corporation. The ITO's direction, which was in the nature of order under Section 195(2) of the Act was made subject matter of appeal and the learned Comm...
Sneh Lata Vs. V.K. Mittal and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT298; 1986RLR209
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. By this order I am to decide an application of Sneh Lata, the plaintiff filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the CPC and Section 12 of the Contempt of Course Act, 1971. there are two respondents: Respondent No. 1 is V.K. Mehta, respondent No. 1 himself, who is former husband of Sneh Lata, and respondent No. 2 Balwant Kumar stated to be the tenant in the house bearing No. E-42 Ashok Vihar, Delhi which house is the subject matter of partition suit between Sneh Lata and Mittal.2. There is no dispute that this house has been built on a plot of land held on perpetual lease hold basis by both Sneh Lata and Mittal as joint lessees. There is also no denying the fact that the house built thereon was by the efforts of both the parties though there is serious contest as to the amounts spent by each of the parties and the nature of the amount so spent. As to what is the share of the respective parties in the house as well as in the land is mainly the subject matter of the suit and w...
Mohd. YasIn Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ320
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is for setting aside an order dated October 3, 1985 of Shri Y.S. Jonwal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. (2) The petitioner was convicted by different courts in respect of five offences committed at different times and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of different periods. The contention of the petitioner is that after setting off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. of the period already spent by him as under-trial, he is entitled to release. The petitioner says that he was arrested on November 7, 1984, that all the sentences of imprisonment expired on August 7, 1985 and that he is wrongly being kept in jail. He applied to the learned magistrate for his release. The learned magistrate obtained report of the Superintendent Jail according to whose calculations, the terms of imprisonment expired on 20th May, 1985. On the basis of the said report, the learned magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner and d...
Jaspal Singh and Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ332
R.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) Jaspal Singh aged 27 and Tripat Singh aged 22, sons of Surjit Singh Along with Joginder Singh (since acquitted) were tried on the charge of murdering Surjit Singh son of Avtar Singh (the name of the deceased and the name of the father of the appellants is the same). The trial Judge found both Jaspal and Tripat guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. They were also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were convicted and sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment on the said charge. (2) The accused have come in appeal against their convictions and sentences. (3) A short pedigree table will be useful in appreciating the evidences and understanding the motive for the crime : Harnam Singh (died in 1970 | | = Har Kaur (died in 1975) | Surjit Singh | = Pritam Kaur (P.W. 1) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | | | Jaspal Singh, Tripat Singh, Karam- Gurdyal T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »